You are on page 1of 17

Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal

(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 DESIGN PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 3


3.2 Rigid Pavement Design ........................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Design of Rigid Pavement as per IRC: 58-2002 ..................................................................... 11

LIST OF TABLES

3.2.1 Traffic Loading (MSA) ..................................................................................................... 4


3.2.2 Base Year Traffic (AADT) ................................................................................................ 4
3.2.3 Traffic Growth Rates ...................................................................................................... 4
3.2.4 Vehicle Damage Factor................................................................................................... 4
3.2.5 Lane Distribution Factors ............................................................................................... 5
3.2.6 Design Life....................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.7 Design Traffic (MSA) for Main Carriageway .................................................................. 6

LIST OF FIGURES

Appendix

Appendix C: Rigid pavement design calculations


Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

Schedule ‘A’ Part-I


Phase – III

3. Pavement Design Report for the Proposed Tunnel Project


Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

3.0 PAVMENT DESIGN REPORT

3.1 DESIGN PROCEDURE

Considering the tunnel project and the drainage problems due to the hilly terrain,
Rigid Pavement has been proposed for the carriageway and the approaches of
tunnel. The following IRC codes have been followed for the pavement design.

 IRC: 58 – 2002, “Guidelines for the Design of Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements, 2nd
Revision”.

The type and pavement structural layers proposed are as under:

Rigid pavement consists of Granular Sub base (GSB), Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) and
Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC). Key plan of the project road is presented as
Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Key Plan of the Project Road


Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

3.2 Rigid Pavement Design

3.2.1 Traffic Loading (MSA)

Base year traffic in terms of AADT, design period, traffic growth rates, vehicle
damage factors (VDFs) and lane distribution factors (LDFs) are required to estimate
the design traffic loading in terms of equivalent standard axles.

3.2.2 Base Year Traffic (AADT)

Since the project road is a green field project, hence traffic surveys has been carried
out on alternate roads and the same has been considered as base year traffic for
MSA calculations. For the purpose of pavement design, commercial vehicles of laden
weight more than 3 tonnes has been considered. Such vehicles consisted of buses,
LCVs, 2 Axle trucks, 3 Axle trucks and Multi Axle trucks. The AADT of commercial
vehicles considered for the pavement design is 3000 CVPD (Includes the 500 army
vehicles).

3.2.3 Traffic Growth Rates

As per clause 5.5.4 of the IRC: Sp 73-2007 a minimum traffic growth rate of 5% has
been considered in the pavement design.

3.2.4 Vehicle Damage Factor

The vehicle damage factor (VDF) is a multiplier to convert the number of commercial
vehicles of different axle loads and axle configuration to the number of standard axle
load repetitions. It is defined as the equivalent number of standard axles per
commercial vehicle. Universally accepted standard axle load weighs 8,160 Kg. ESAL
is determined by the relationships recommended in IRC: 37-2001 & IRC: 37-2012
‘Tentative guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements’. An excerpt is
presented here.

1. Single axle with single wheel on either side:


Equivalency Factor = (Axle load in tonnes /6.6)4

2. Single axle with dual wheels on either side:


Equivalency Factor = (Axle load in tonnes /8.16)4
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

3. Tandem axle with dual wheels on either side:


Equivalency Factor = (Axle load in tonnes /14.968)4

4. Tridem axles with dual wheels on either side:


Equivalency Factor = (Axle load in tonnes /22.9)4

The relationship is referred to as the ‘Fourth Power Rule’, which states that the
damaging effect of an axle load increases as the fourth power of the weight of an
axle. In order to convert axle loads from the survey data into ESAL, each axle of
each category of vehicle is multiplied by the equivalency factor of that type of axle.
The output is called the ‘damage’ caused by that particular axle on the pavement.
Damages by all axles are then added to find the cumulative damage by that type of
vehicle. The cumulative damage is divided by the number of vehicles of that
category surveyed to obtain the average damage, which is also called the Vehicle
Damage Factor (VDF) of that category of vehicle.

Cumulative Damage
VDF =
Sample size

The project road is a green field project, hence in the absence of axle load data
considered the VDF of 2.5 (for CVPD>1500) as per clause 4.4.6 of the IRC: 37-2012.

3.2.5 Lane Distribution Factors

Lane distribution factors have been considered as per clause 4.5.1 of IRC: 37-2012
and the same are given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Adopted Lane Distribution Factors

Design Period
Sl No Description LDF Considered (%)
From (Year) To (Year)

1 2 Lane Carriageway 2014 2047 50

3.2.6 Design Life


Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

Pavement design life is the period for which the initial design of pavement crust
layers shall be carried out. Design life should not be referred as terminal stage of
crust beyond which crust becomes unusable.

A design life of 30 years has been considered for the rigid pavement design.

3.2.7 Design Traffic (MSA) for Main Carriageway

The design traffic is considered in terms of the cumulative number of standard axles
to be carried during the design life of the road.

This can be computed using the following equation:

N = 365*[(1+r)n-1]*A*D*F

Where,

N = Cumulative number of standard axles to be catered for in the design in


terms of MSA

A = Initial traffic in the years of completion of construction in terms of the


number of commercial vehicles per day.

D = Lane distribution factor

F = Vehicle Damage Factor

n = Design life in years

r = Annual growth rate of commercial vehicles

The traffic in the year of completion is estimated using the following formula:

A=P (1+r/100)x

Where,
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

P = Number of commercial vehicles as per count


x = Number of years between the count and the year of completion of
construction.

Design loading (MSA) for the carriageway so calculated is 112 and calculated detail
MSA calculations are given in Table 3.2.
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

Table 3.2: MSA Calculations for Pavement Design

Traffic Growth Rate (%) VDF ESAL (MSA)


Year
LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS Yearly Cumulative

2014 1000 800 1000 100 100 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.37

2015 1050 840 1050 105 105 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.44

2016 1103 882 1103 110 110 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.51

2017 1158 926 1158 116 116 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.58 0.79

2018 1216 972 1216 122 122 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.66 2.46

2019 1276 1021 1276 128 128 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 4.20

2020 1340 1072 1340 134 134 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.83 6.04

2021 1407 1126 1407 141 141 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.93 7.96

2022 1477 1182 1477 148 148 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.02 9.99

2023 1551 1241 1551 155 155 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.12 12.11

2024 1629 1303 1629 163 163 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.23 14.34

2025 1710 1368 1710 171 171 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.34 16.68
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

Traffic Growth Rate (%) VDF ESAL (MSA)


Year
LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS Yearly Cumulative

2026 1796 1437 1796 180 180 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.46 19.14

2027 1886 1509 1886 189 189 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.58 21.72

2028 1980 1584 1980 198 198 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.71 24.43

2029 2079 1663 2079 208 208 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.85 27.27

2030 2183 1746 2183 218 218 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.99 30.26

2031 2292 1834 2292 229 229 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.5 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.14 33.40

2032 2407 1925 2407 241 241 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.29 35.05

2033 2527 2022 2527 253 253 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.5 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.46 40.15

2034 2653 2123 2653 265 265 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.63 43.78

2035 2786 2229 2786 279 279 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.81 47.60

2036 2925 2340 2925 293 293 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 4.00 51.60

2037 3072 2457 3072 307 307 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 4.20 55.80

2038 3225 2580 3225 323 323 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 4.41 60.22
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of proposal
(DPR) for Construction of A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd., in JV
Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik with Feedback Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
in the state of Uttarakhand State

Traffic Growth Rate (%) VDF ESAL (MSA)


Year
LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS LCV 2-Axle 3-Axle MAV BUS Yearly Cumulative

2039 3386 2709 3386 339 339 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 4.64 64.85

2040 3556 2845 3556 356 356 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 4.87 69.72

2041 3733 2987 3733 373 373 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.11 74.83

2042 3920 3136 3920 392 392 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.37 80.20

2043 4116 3293 4116 412 412 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.63 85.83

2044 4322 3458 4322 432 432 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 5.92 91.75

2045 4538 3630 4538 454 454 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 6.21 97.96

2046 4765 3812 4765 476 476 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 6.52 104.48

2047 5003 4003 5003 500 500 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 6.85 111.33
3.3 Design of Rigid Pavement as per IRC: 58-2002

While flexible pavement basically distributes the load gradually to the layers
underneath, rigid Pavement acts as a structural element (a plate) resting on an
elastic foundation.

The pavement has been designed in accordance with “IRC: 58-2002, Guidelines for
the design of plain jointed rigid pavements for highways, second edition” for design
life of 30 years. The design flow chart for rigid pavement design is given in Figure
3.2.

Stipulate Design Values for various


parameters

Decide types and spacing between joints

 Axle Load Spectrum by Intensity of


Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of Proposal (DPR) for Construction of Yon
A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik in Uttarakhand State Fee

Figure 3.2: Rigid Pavement Design Flow Chart (IRC: 58-2002)

Design of Subgrade and Subbase

PHASE-I Report
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of Proposal (DPR) for Construction of Yon
A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik in Uttarakhand State Fee

500 mm subgrade of CBR 10% and 150 mm Granular Sub-base shall be provided.
This sub base layer shall act as drainage layer as well.

Dry Lean Concrete

Dry lean concrete of M-10 grade and 150 mm thickness shall be provided as base for
better load distribution, and better support for concrete Paver.

Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC)

Pavement Quality Concrete of M-40 grade shall be used and PQC thickness is
designed as per provisions of IRC: 58-2002.

Design of Rigid Pavement as per IRC: 58-2002

The PQC thickness is designed as per IRC: 58-2002 and the method of analysis
briefly described below:

Edge stress- Due to Load and due to temperature

i) Due to load

The load stress in the critical edge region is calculated using Picket and Ray’s chart
as given in Appendix-1 of IRC: 58-2002.The charts are based on modulus of sub-
grade reaction, k and the thickness of Slab.

ii) Due to Temperature

The temperature stress at the critical edge region may be obtained as per
Westergaard’s analysis, using Bradbury’s coefficient, from the following equation:

Ext
t e  .C
2

Where,

PHASE-I Report
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of Proposal (DPR) for Construction of Yon
A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik in Uttarakhand State Fee

te = Temperature stress in the edge region, kg/cm2

∆t = Maximum temperature differential during day between top and


Bottom of the slab, ºC
α = Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete,
C = Bradbury’s coefficient, which can be ascertained directly
from
Bradbury’s chart against values of L/I and W/l,
W = Slab width, cm and
l = Radius of relative stiffness

Eh3
Radius of relative stiffness (cm) l = 4
 
12 1   2 K

Where,

E = Elasticity of concrete, kg/cm2


 = Poison’s ratio
K = Effective Modulus of subgrade reaction, kg/cm2/cm

Corner stress

The load stress in the corner region is calculated using Westergaard’s analysis, as
modified by Kelly, from the following equation:

3P
Sc = 1- (a√2/l)1.2
h2

Where,

Sc = Load stress in the corner region, other notations remaining the


same
as in the case of the edge load stress formula, kg/cm2
a = Radius of area of contact of wheel, cm
0.5
 P S P  
0.5

Radius of area of contact of wheel, a = 0.8521x    


 qx   0.5277 xq  

Where,

PHASE-I Report
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of Proposal (DPR) for Construction of Yon
A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik in Uttarakhand State Fee

P = Design wheel load, kg


S = C/c distance between two tyres =31cm
q = Tyre pressure=8 kg/cm2

Design Input

Tyre pressure = 8 kg/cm2

Design life = 30 Years

A base of lean concrete of thickness 150 mm shall be provided below the pavement
slab.

Modulus of subgrade reaction


(Corresponding to 10 % Subgrade CBR) ksg = 5.5kg/cm3

Since the soaked CBR value of the borrow material is taken as 10%, it has a k sg
value of 5 kg/cm3 which is less than the suggested minimum, of 6 kg/cm3, required
for placing the slab directly over subgrade. As per table-4 of IRC: 58-2002, the
modified (effective) k value over 150 mm DLC is 41.7 kg/cm3. So, the adopted ksb
value for design is 41.7 kg/cm3.

Effective k-value ksb = 41.7 kg/cm3


Elasticity of Concrete E = 300000 kg/cm2

Poisson's ratio of concrete  = 0.15

Co-efficient of linear expansion of concrete  = 0.00001/oC

Load safety factor (LSF) = 1.2

28 day flexural strength of concrete fcr = 44.27 kg/cm2

Coefficient of friction f = 1.5

Density of concrete w = 2400 kg/m3

Permissible Tensile stresses in Plain bars fls = 1250 kg/cm2

Permissible Tensile stresses in deformed bars shs = 2000 kg/cm2

PHASE-I Report
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of Proposal (DPR) for Construction of Yon
A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik in Uttarakhand State Fee

Permissible bond stress in plain tie bars bop = 17.5 kg/cm2

Permissible bond stress in deformed tie bars bod = 24.6 kg/cm2

Design Procedure

(a) Axle Load Repetitions - The cumulative repetitions of traffic has been worked out
using the following formula:

CVPD x {(1+ r/100)n – 1} x 365


Ns =
r/100
Where,
CVPD = Commercial Vehicles Per day
r = Rate of growth.

Design wheel load: 98 percentile wheel load has been considered as design wheel
load. Design wheel load varies from 12 tonnes, is selected based on the basis of axle
load spectrum.

In the absence of axle load spectrum data, assumed the spectrum based on the
previous experience for the design purpose. The design so carried out is elaborated
in Annexure C. The proposed rigid pavement crust for the carriageway is given in
Table 1.3.

Table 3.3: Proposed Crust for Concrete Pavement for the Carriageway

New Crust Composition for Rigid


Layer Composition
Pavement (mm)

Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) of M 40 Grade with


280
flexural strength of 44.27 kg/cm2

Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) of M10 Grade 150

Granular sub-base 150

Subgarde with material having CBR ≥ 10% 500

Details of Dowel Bar

PHASE-I Report
Detailed Feasibility Study and Framing up of Proposal (DPR) for Construction of Yon
A 0.900 Km long Tunnel at Rudraprayag Bypass in 21 BRTF Sector (P) Shivalik in Uttarakhand State Fee

New Crust Composition for Rigid


Layer Composition
Pavement (mm)

Diameter (mm) 32

Spacing (mm) 250

Length (mm) 500

Details of Tie Bar

Diameter (Plain), mm 14

Spacing (Plain), mm 450

Length (Plain), mm 650

PHASE-I Report